Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

[SeventyOne]

Perhaps you could start your own thread, in which you explain to scientists why what they do for a living isn't science. Your comments seem to be off-topic here.

Well, you're wrong on that point. Evolution happened, and it is a field of science. Your belief in it is not necessary.

You two are funny. Next thing you'll tell me is that Aesop's Fables are non-fiction.

 

[AlexDTX]

What does that have to do with anything? You do realize that many of the scientists who have studied human evolution are Christians, right?

God does not need evolution as his creative process. If you have ever experienced the power of God in a true miracle you would know what I mean.

Being a scientist means nothing. Scientists are the Druids of modern life. I say this as one raised by a scientist. They think they know everything yet they actually know nothing.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I have the same contempt for Christians who become psychologists and psychiatrists.

Christians who study science while referencing the Scriptures stand closer to the Truth and are more likely to hit the nail on the head.

 

[effalo]

This is my own speculative framework for reconciling the evidence for evolution with the biblical truth of an historical Adam and Eve. This is just a brief sketch of the position, I plan to greatly develop this view in a proper essay when I get the time.

First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago, the human population was never at any time less than a few thousand individuals, and there is such a thing as a chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve from whom all individuals are descended. As Dr. Craig has pointed out, there are indications these days that this "Adam" and "Eve" may have been contemporaneous. My framework operates on the presupposition of the truth of this premise but is not inextricably bound to it.

Now that we have the basic scientific premeses out of the way, we need to establish the basic theological framework upon which this model is based. The evolutionary creationism i hold to is grounded in the reformed doctrine, best elaborated in the Westminster confession, that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Extrapolated into the sciences, this would mean that nothing is truly "random" but may merely appear that way. Each and every "random" genetic variation and environmental contingency, the backbones of descent with modification by means of natural selection, have been predestined by the creator. So based on this theological framework, we can put forward a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth. This process was wholly guided by God in that each and every event, down to the most miniscule, was foreordained, and yet all was accomplished by means of natural processes which God himself authored and used as the means of his creative work. This model of evolutionary creationism is completely consistent with the scientific record, and will serve as the foundation for our forthcoming speculations concerning human origins.

Before we may properly put forth a model of human origins we must first establish a basic theological framework for understanding the relationship of God and man. The basic theological principle which we shall here employ is the principle of covenant relationship. God enters into relationship with man by means of covenants. Following the classical reformed tradition, we can understand the relationship of God with the first man, Adam, as a covenant of works whereby eternal life is promised on condition of perfect obedience, while death is solemnly threatened on condition of disobedience. This understanding of the first covenant between God and man is essential to understanding Paul's exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans and, as such, is key to our Christian faith. Though Christians may differ on the precise nature of this first covenant, it should at least be clear that an historical Adam is necessary for such a covenant to have existed at all, and is further rendered necessary by Pauls covenantal comparison of Christ and Adam in the epistle to the Romans.

All of this being said, we must conclude that bible-believing Christians must affirm the existence of a literal Adam whom God entered into a covenant with. Note that this is not to say that the early chapters of Genesis are necessarily a literal chronological account of these primevil events. Now here we run into a real issue; how can the scientific evidence of evolution and population genetics be reconciled with the biblically necessary truth of a first man, Adam, from whom all modern humans are descended? Given that we have already described the basic scientific data that lays before us, as well as the necessary theological foundations, we may now construct a model of the historical Adam within the context of our modern scientific knowledge.

My first presupposition is that the nature of humanity is most fundamentally theological not biological. This is critically important to my argument, as i will argue that an anatomically modern homo sapien sapien is not necessarily human in the full and proper sense. Rather, what makes a human a human is the image of God. Now the bible declares that God is spirit, so it is logical to conclude that the image of God is none other than a spiritual nature. So we can define a human as a homo sapien sapien that possesses a spirit, or a spiritual nature. So a human is a composit of a biological nature and a spiritual nature, and if either is lacking it cannot be said to be truly or fully human. This is also, as an aside, why bodily resurrection is so central to the record of divine revelation. This physical/spiritual composite nature of man is the anthropological basis of my model.

Now we get into the gist of the model itself. I will grant the conclusions of evolutionary biology and population genetics that homo sapien sapiens evolved by means of descent with modification from a common primate anscestor. I will also grant that the homo sapien sapien population was never less than a few thousand individuals. So where does the historical Adam and Eve come in?

Taking an initial localized homo sapien sapien population of a few thousand, in the very distant past, it is conceivable that God, wishing to create man and enter into covenant with him, elected one male and one female out of this population to be the subjects of his covenant. This would be Adam and Eve. He chose these two individuals and supernaturally infused a spirit, or spiritual nature, within them. Thereby it can be properly said, as Genesis 1 declares, that he made them male and female in the image of God. Being made in the image of God, this pair is now truly human and fitting subjects for Gods covenant. All modern human beings are descended from this historical pair. Over the course of time, by Gods providence, those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair were rendered extinct. I will further presuppose that this pair corresponds to chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, though this may not be strictly necessary for the validity of the model.

This model simultaneously and rationally affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all modern humans are descended, while also affirming the reality of human evolution and the base population models of population genetics. Nothing in this model should contradict any piece of genetic evidence, as all descendents of Adam and Eve would share genetic traits all the way down the evolutionary chain, while still in reality being descended from two individuals.

This is a rough sketch of my model, which i hope to refine and further develop. I would greatly appreciate thoughts and constructive criticism. Thank you.

Hello ALoveDivine,

I have a few questions. The Bible tells us that in the beginning, God created everything good. Are thousands and millions of years of death and destruction good? Where did death and destruction come from? The Bible tells us that death entered the picture because Adam and Eve sinned. Because of sin, we see the evil around us. What does the evolutionary worldview show us in this respect?

Does Biblical truth or do workers in the field of science have the primary authority? I only know that workers in the scientific field are fallible. The word of God by nature shows itself having an infallible Author. How may my statements be reconciled with your view above?

ELD

 

[friend of]

@ALoveDivine

I'd be interested in reading your essay in full when you get around to completing it.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Are thousands and millions of years of death and destruction good?

Well there are a few things Id say to that. First, what do you mean by good? Good in the sense of conducive as precedent conditions which sculpt the ecology and biodiversity of the earth in view of God's aim of manifesting his glory in the saga of human redemption, I certainly don't see why not. Beyond that there are certain assumptions hidden in your question. For example do animals experience pain like we do? One could argue that animals have physiological pain responses without actually having any conscious experience of pain. We can't know whether they have such conscious experience and to assume so would be to anthropormorphize. If they do not, then all the history of "death" and "suffering" involves nothing more than, in the broad scope of things, biological and physical processes.

Where did death and destruction come from?

What is this destruction you speak of? Are metor impacts and volcanic explosions intrinsically "bad" in the absense of consciously-experiencing pain and fear perceivers? As ive pointed out, there is no evidence that non-human animals qualify though appearance seems on the surface to indicate as much. Human beings, being spiritual beings as well as physical, may in fact be unique in terms of self-perceptive conscious experience. If what i'm saying is true, then destruction and animal death cannot be conceived of as intrinsically "bad" by any means.

The Bible tells us that death entered the picture because Adam and Eve sinned

Yes, human death, and more specifically, spiritual death. That is the obvious context of that passage in the book of Romans.

 

[sfs]

Did you know that carbon dating is based on the half life of carbon being 5730 years.

True.

Scientists got this figure by taking various sources of carbon and the age archaeologists said these items were, using those dates as a way of determining the level of decay of carbon.

Completely false. Physicists determine the half-life of radioisotopes, not archeologists. They do it by taking samples of the isotope and seeing how fast it decays.

So for example, they took fossils and said these are 250 million years old so this is the state of carbon after 250 million years and that then became the state of carbon that they date as 250 million years old.

Radiocarbon dating is only good for dating samples that are less than ~50,000 years old.

It would be good if you learned at least a little bit about the subject you're lecturing scientists on.

 

[hedrick]

A few years back I saw an report on the accuracy of carbon dating. They took some wood that was known to be 250 years old, it was from something like a piece of furniture that was dated and the source of wood known. Samples of this were sent to 3 labs who returned results of 20,000, the second of 250,000 and the final one 250 million years.

Pretty unlikely. 50,000 years is the limit for C14 dating. And it used to be even less.

 

[4x4toy]

Pretty unlikely. 50,000 years is the limit for C14 dating. And it used to be even less.

Any thing much over 60 yrs is pretty much speculation from my standpoint ..

 

[sfs]

Show me one mutation in any living creature that is beneficial for that creature.

A few known beneficial mutations in humans (off the top of my head):
The mutation in SLC24A5 that gives Europeans lighter skin pigmentation. Any of the couple of dozen other mutations in various genes that have tuned skin pigmentation in Europeans, Asians and Africans. The several mutations near LCT that confer the ability to digest lactose as adults (mutations that occurred independently in several populations in Europe and Africa). The mutation in EDAR that changes sweat glands and hair texture in East Asians (why it's beneficial is unclear, but it is). The Duffy null mutation that eliminates expression of the Duffy blood antigen, that confers near-complete immunity to vivax malaria. Increased gene number of amylase genes in agricultural populations.

You cant because there are no proven examples of mutations that have ever been found. That is why we have the missing link, or in reality 1000's of missing links. For evolution to work mutations are required which benefit the animal, but scientists have never found one and every mutation ever found is bad for the animal and usually results in it dying or needing special care to be kept alive (but wouldnt survive in the wild).

That's just completely wrong. A huge amount is known about beneficial mutations in all kinds of species. Where are you getting this information?

I have also met a geneticist who is highly regarded in the field and has been asked at times to speak at conferences addressing the top 100 scientists in the world in his field. He says he can prove evolution as its currently taught doesnt work but you need to be an expert in DNA to understand it. He uses the words that he can prove it is false.

Great. I'm an expert in DNA, and I've worked with many of the top geneticists in the world. Who is this guy and what is his argument?

 

[4x4toy]

God tells us why and where death comes from . Why can't your evolution correct the telomere and evolve telomeres that regenerate instead of degrade to death . I sit here right now with a broken rib that will be fine in another 3 or 4 weeks because of built in self healing while I continue to march to my physical grave .. Don't attempt to explain, you can't

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I have never understood this need to pit science against the Bible.

I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I also believe that Genesis was written for a primitive people as an allegory to explain this fact, not as a history text to describe the mechanics.

I also believe that God gave us minds and the ability to reason. He has allowed us to use these God-given abilities to develop the techniques that advance science, science that has led to theories of evolution and the big bang.

There is no conflict in my view. You can believe in evolution and believe in the essential lesson of Genesis 1 which is that God created everything.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I have never understood this need to pit science against the Bible.

I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I also believe that Genesis was written for a primitive people as an allegory to explain this fact, not as a history text to describe the mechanics.

I also believe that God gave us minds and the ability to reason. He has allowed us to use these God-given abilities to develop the techniques that advance science, science that has led to theories of evolution and the big bang.

There is no conflict in my view. You can believe in evolution and believe in the essential lesson of Genesis 1 which is that God created everything.

Your stated view here conflicts directly with all Scripture ,
mainly in even considering as if mankind's "minds and the ability to reason" could result in anything good - directly contrary to what YHWH says in His Word - His Perfect Word.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Your stated view here conflicts directly with all Scripture ,
mainly in even considering as if mankind's "minds and the ability to reason" could result in anything good - directly contrary to what YHWH says in His Word - His Perfect Word.

Please show me where in scripture it says that God does not want people thinking. Reason and the ability to think are gifts from God.

And, I do not doubt scripture, just man's interpretation of it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God does not need evolution as his creative process.....

I'm always puzzled why anyone bothers to cite this as a reason to deny the science. Nobody said God needed anything; but the record shows (the record in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes) that He did use evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Your stated view here conflicts directly with all Scripture ,
mainly in even considering as if mankind's "minds and the ability to reason" could result in anything good - directly contrary to what YHWH says in His Word - His Perfect Word.

I'm sorry, your reasoning can't be used here, because you told us human reasoning cannot be trusted, so we don't have to trust your reasoning.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God tells us why and where death comes from . Why can't your evolution correct the telomere and evolve telomeres that regenerate instead of degrade to death . I sit here right now with a broken rib that will be fine in another 3 or 4 weeks because of built in self healing while I continue to march to my physical grave .. Don't attempt to explain, you can't

You speak as if telomeres were bad for you. They prevent tumors, because cells that start to grow uncontrollably die off when the telomeres are used up in the cell division process. Many a nascent cancer is stopped in its tracks by this means.

 

[Halbhh]

Each Christian is certainly welcome to their own view on this matter and its not a salvation issue, but we ought not to be immediately dismissive of science just because it doesnt fit with our preconceived interpretive framework. God is the creator of the universe as well as the author of scripture, so the two cannot legitimately be in contradiction. I don't think anyone who seriously and objectively looks at the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution, especially the genetic evidence, can simply reject it as false.

I should also note that not even young-earth creationists take Genesis 1 completely literally. Ive yet to hear anyone insist that the sky is a solid-dome firmament where both stars and birds exist, with water existing above it. But thats what the text says. The text is putting forth a primitive cosmology that even yec believers reject. So even young earthers dont take the text strictly literally. If it cant be taken strictly literally, what is the issue with affirming that it speaks of historical events using figurative language?

I've taken the actual language of Genesis 1 to be 'days' that are widely spaced in time -- a series of days, like movie clips, or snapshots in time -- and that all of Gen 1 is from vision(s) given to the writer, who then wrote down what he saw in the vision(s) as best he could using the words he had and the best guess he had at what he was seeing.

Now, since Earth formed by accretion, and of course the accretion disk included water we can wonder about water above the ground in many ways, such as this way. But even more interesting to me is the fact that the very early Earth was very warm and the air would be very thick with water vapor, mists, so that to a camera eye viewpoint on the surface, peering through the mists, it might be like the water was in the air, possibly, in a visual sense. (also, note how the total cloudiness allows day and night cycle to begin before the sun, moon and stars first become visible on day 4 presumably due to a break in the clouds....) That heavy watery vapor, thick mist, makes me wonder. But the hypothesis that Earth was for a time an 'ocean world' before the continents emerged above the water corresponds to the text also we note! I consider all of these aspects strictly interesting only to those that wish to consider if the language in Gen 1 is in part literal, instead of only figurative.

Of course, no viewpoint about Gen 1 has anything to do with saving faith in Christ. The only thing that saves.

Only faith in Christ alone saves, never any of the viewpoints about Gen 1, as you pointed to in your wording in the OP, and all such speculations as ours and the speculations of others including yec type speculations are all equally unimportant to real, saving faith.

But some will base their house on "sand" as Christ said in Matthew 7, that is anything of any kind that isn't hearing and doing as He says in His commands, and every 'faith' built on sand, including the yec and others that are not based on Christ alone, and on Christ's words only, alone -- hearing and doing as He commanded -- will likely collapse and "great" will that fall.

So, I continue to attempt to point the true-believers in a non-Christ-centric version of 'faith', ardent belief in other things, like yec and such, back towards the only thing that matters, ultimately, the good news of Christ, their only possible hope, and only sound basis of faith that can save them.

 

[HenryM]

This is my own speculative framework for reconciling the evidence for evolution with the biblical truth of an historical Adam and Eve. This is just a brief sketch of the position, I plan to greatly develop this view in a proper essay when I get the time.

First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago, the human population was never at any time less than a few thousand individuals, and there is such a thing as a chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve from whom all individuals are descended. As Dr. Craig has pointed out, there are indications these days that this "Adam" and "Eve" may have been contemporaneous. My framework operates on the presupposition of the truth of this premise but is not inextricably bound to it.

Now that we have the basic scientific premeses out of the way, we need to establish the basic theological framework upon which this model is based. The evolutionary creationism i hold to is grounded in the reformed doctrine, best elaborated in the Westminster confession, that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Extrapolated into the sciences, this would mean that nothing is truly "random" but may merely appear that way. Each and every "random" genetic variation and environmental contingency, the backbones of descent with modification by means of natural selection, have been predestined by the creator. So based on this theological framework, we can put forward a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth. This process was wholly guided by God in that each and every event, down to the most miniscule, was foreordained, and yet all was accomplished by means of natural processes which God himself authored and used as the means of his creative work. This model of evolutionary creationism is completely consistent with the scientific record, and will serve as the foundation for our forthcoming speculations concerning human origins.

Before we may properly put forth a model of human origins we must first establish a basic theological framework for understanding the relationship of God and man. The basic theological principle which we shall here employ is the principle of covenant relationship. God enters into relationship with man by means of covenants. Following the classical reformed tradition, we can understand the relationship of God with the first man, Adam, as a covenant of works whereby eternal life is promised on condition of perfect obedience, while death is solemnly threatened on condition of disobedience. This understanding of the first covenant between God and man is essential to understanding Paul's exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans and, as such, is key to our Christian faith. Though Christians may differ on the precise nature of this first covenant, it should at least be clear that an historical Adam is necessary for such a covenant to have existed at all, and is further rendered necessary by Pauls covenantal comparison of Christ and Adam in the epistle to the Romans.

All of this being said, we must conclude that bible-believing Christians must affirm the existence of a literal Adam whom God entered into a covenant with. Note that this is not to say that the early chapters of Genesis are necessarily a literal chronological account of these primevil events. Now here we run into a real issue; how can the scientific evidence of evolution and population genetics be reconciled with the biblically necessary truth of a first man, Adam, from whom all modern humans are descended? Given that we have already described the basic scientific data that lays before us, as well as the necessary theological foundations, we may now construct a model of the historical Adam within the context of our modern scientific knowledge.

My first presupposition is that the nature of humanity is most fundamentally theological not biological. This is critically important to my argument, as i will argue that an anatomically modern homo sapien sapien is not necessarily human in the full and proper sense. Rather, what makes a human a human is the image of God. Now the bible declares that God is spirit, so it is logical to conclude that the image of God is none other than a spiritual nature. So we can define a human as a homo sapien sapien that possesses a spirit, or a spiritual nature. So a human is a composit of a biological nature and a spiritual nature, and if either is lacking it cannot be said to be truly or fully human. This is also, as an aside, why bodily resurrection is so central to the record of divine revelation. This physical/spiritual composite nature of man is the anthropological basis of my model.

Now we get into the gist of the model itself. I will grant the conclusions of evolutionary biology and population genetics that homo sapien sapiens evolved by means of descent with modification from a common primate anscestor. I will also grant that the homo sapien sapien population was never less than a few thousand individuals. So where does the historical Adam and Eve come in?

Taking an initial localized homo sapien sapien population of a few thousand, in the very distant past, it is conceivable that God, wishing to create man and enter into covenant with him, elected one male and one female out of this population to be the subjects of his covenant. This would be Adam and Eve. He chose these two individuals and supernaturally infused a spirit, or spiritual nature, within them. Thereby it can be properly said, as Genesis 1 declares, that he made them male and female in the image of God. Being made in the image of God, this pair is now truly human and fitting subjects for Gods covenant. All modern human beings are descended from this historical pair. Over the course of time, by Gods providence, those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair were rendered extinct. I will further presuppose that this pair corresponds to chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, though this may not be strictly necessary for the validity of the model.

This model simultaneously and rationally affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all modern humans are descended, while also affirming the reality of human evolution and the base population models of population genetics. Nothing in this model should contradict any piece of genetic evidence, as all descendents of Adam and Eve would share genetic traits all the way down the evolutionary chain, while still in reality being descended from two individuals.

This is a rough sketch of my model, which i hope to refine and further develop. I would greatly appreciate thoughts and constructive criticism. Thank you.

The main problem with what you present, as I see it, is that God repeated six day creation account into the commandment (4th commandment).

I have made couple of comments about it on this forum, and it seems people don't take it very seriously. Well... Anyway, if God gives you written legal matter, I don't see there's a chance it would hold some metaphors or allegories. God's commandment is top of the tops of the serious and precise words God can give us, so I don't think it's for us to interpret it any other way than literal.

Not to mention all other Biblical revelations, clues and even necessities that make creation account a literal account, including the ones coming from Jesus. And none to point otherwise.

So you have a choice between believing God and taking His commandment as He gave us, or believing evolutionists humans who mostly don't believe in God at all (at the top ranks at least, those who were and are pushing their narrative the most).

 

[Job 33:6]

There are a number of flaws with this. The biggest one being your acceptance of science's version of timescales. Did you know that carbon dating is based on the half life of carbon being 5730 years. Scientists got this figure by taking various sources of carbon and the age archaeologists said these items were, using those dates as a way of determining the level of decay of carbon. So for example, they took fossils and said these are 250 million years old so this is the state of carbon after 250 million years and that then became the state of carbon that they date as 250 million years old.

A few years back I saw an report on the accuracy of carbon dating. They took some wood that was known to be 250 years old, it was from something like a piece of furniture that was dated and the source of wood known. Samples of this were sent to 3 labs who returned results of 20,000, the second of 250,000 and the final one 250 million years. Carbon dating can only work if we have the dates right for determining the state of carbon were correct. It also assumes that carbon deteriorates at a consistent rate, but we have not been able to measure the radioactive isotope in carbon accurately enough to be able to prove this is the case. And I will only touch on the fact that god could have created carbon in different states but man has tried to falsely put their own meaning on why it is different.

So the whole basis of evolutionary evidence you are basing your made up theory on is based on flawed assumptions.

This is, sorry to be blunt about it, but this is a lie. An accredited laboratory that performs radiocarbon dating would not give a result of 250 million years, as no human technology could measure concentrations of parent and daughter isotopes to such a minute amount. It doesn't even make any sense.

You need to re check your sources of information.

If you cannot source that actual reported data, then you should admit that you have just stated false information.

I regularly work with laboratories that perform carbon dating and dating of many sorts, and I know by experience they wouldnt report carbon ratios that date at 250 million years old.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The main problem with what you present, as I see it, is that God repeated six day creation account into the commandment (4th commandment).

I have made couple of comments about it on this forum, and it seems people don't take it very seriously. Well... Anyway, if God gives you written legal matter, I don't see there's a chance it would hold some metaphors or allegories. God's commandment is top of the tops of the serious and precise words God can give us, so I don't think it's for us to interpret it any way other that literal.

Not to mention all other Biblical revelations and clues that creation account is literal account, including the ones coming from Jesus. And none to point otherwise.

So you have a choice between believing God and taking His commandment as He gave us, or believing evolutionists humans who mostly don't believe in God at all (at the top ranks at least, those who were and are pushing their narrative the most).

The main problem with what you present, as I see it, is that God created abundant evidence in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes that the earth is over 4 billion years of age, the universe is over 13 billion years of age, and life on earth achieved its present state from millions of years of evolution. We have the fossils showing a lot of the extinct species, we have the relics of previous species that turn up all the time in existing species, we have the testimony of the radioactive decays, we have the nested hierarchy of life, we have the shared genetic defects across multiple species . . . and we find that assuming the fact of evolution is a guide to how to find transitional fossil species. Man didn't put all that evidence there . . . God did. So your choice is believing God and what He put there for scientists to find and observe, or to accept what people wrote down and interpreted in accordance with the pre-scientific point of view.

You can trust the direct Word of God written by Him in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.